(that phrase! How ironic it now seems to me! After my feelings have been construed as actually taking liberty, or freedom, from others!)
--of emailing 4800+ US members of Singlesaints.com to inform them of the Church's stance on a federal marriage amendment, and of the action they could take.
Got some heated responses, I did.
First, what I wrote:
If you haven't already heard, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on a federal marriage amendment this week.
You also may not have heard that the Church announced last Wednesday that it favors an amendment that preserves "marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
Without massive action, however, it probably won't pass.
But it might. Here's what you can do if you haven't already done so.
Call your senators' offices. This page will show you how the voting stands right now -- you should be able to see if your senators are for or against. It also has their phone numbers. We've called. You can, too. Let them know how you feel. (If you can't afford the long distance charges, use this page to find their email address.)
Tell your friends. If you're not up to writing your own email, you're welcome to forward this one on, though this one is basically presuming you're LDS and you trust the leaders of the Church. See where the opposition is coming from, and contact your close friends in those states.
Pray. I shouldn't have to give you instructions on that one.
Thanks for letting me take this opportunity to get all politically active. You may now resume your normal web-surfing. (After you make the calls.)
Randy Tayler
Head Honcho
Now, some of the replies:
im glad u sent this , i hate those dang queers
Why should I be a bigot and vote against civil rights for gay people? If your prophet told you to drink poisoned kool-aid, would you do that too? Mind your own ****ing business, you hypocrites.
[edited. For the record, turns out he was an Ex-Mormon, but still on the records. He later said, when I delved further: "He's not my prophet. I merely said that I am a member of the church."]
you really think it's constitutional to deny anyone their rights as a US Citizen on the basis of religion?
it's a rhetorical question. I'll call my senator, opposing.
You are a bigot and I hope your company fails. Please take me off your
list. I do not support hatrid nor denying anyone rights. If this is a
political organization you should say that when people sign up for it. I
will however pray for you and our church to remember what it feels like to
be persecuted, hated, and denied rights. Try reading the 11th article of
faith. You and your company are hypocrits and unchrist-like. I rebuke you
sir. Good Day.
I am sorry, but I have resigned from the church, and also I wholeheartedly
support GAY MARRIAGE.
I cancelled my account with you in April 2003.
Please remove me from your list.
Well, I don't agree and i think that anyone that does agree with it... HAS NO RIGHT TO JUDGE !!!!!
I also received two more cordial thanks, and two or three more respectful disagreements.
What have we learned, class? We learned to more loudly voice our love for the sinner when we denounce the sin.
It's ironic to find myself in this position, being called a bigot, hate-filled, etc., because not more than a year ago, our Stake President was addressing a fireside about the topic of homosexuality, and I walked out of it, because I felt contentious and angry, and because I wanted to voice my dissent in the most non-contentious way I could think of. I wrote a letter to the Stake President.
Now, I didn't call him hate-filled, or bigot -- I merely... oh, here, I saved the letter.
Dear President,
I don't know if a letter of this sort is appropriate or not, or if keeping my thoughts to myself is more apropos. I feel no ill will towards you, and, being relatively new in the stake (4 months), I have never been introduced to you.
At the stake priesthood meeting, your remarks about gay people and homosexuality saddened me for two reasons. First, I felt that any young man there who has been struggling with the temptation of same-sex attraction would have felt estranged and alienated and unwelcome in the fold. Second, I felt that your words fanned the flame of hatred in heterosexuals towards homosexuals.
I know this was surely not your intent, neither to push sinners away from their source of healing, nor to add to the already strong prejudice against and hatred for homosexuals. Intended or not, however, I feel like your approach to the matter was destructive and saddening. I left before you finished; I felt that the only peacable way I could express disagreement was to simply go. (Neither do I know if that, too, was inappropriate. I knew it would never do to voice disagreement from the congregation, despite your admonition to stand up for what we believe in. Instead I simply stood up and walked out.)
As far as my first concern goes, I don't know what goes on inside the mind of young man with issues of same-sex attraction. I have had friends -- members of the church -- that struggled against this temptation, and one took almost 20 years to tell his parents about his struggle. If such a man was in the congregation Sunday night, I think he's much less likely to confront a bishop or parent about his feelings -- which is surely a necessary step in overcoming them -- when they have been so villified.
Surely homosexual behavior is a choice, as you stated. But nothing was said to console those with such urges. I wish you had said something like "The individual struggling against such temptations may not have brought them on himself, and should find strength in talking with his priesthood leaders on how to overcome them." That would have helped draw the line more clearly between hating the sin and loving the sinner.
I once believed that same-sex attraction was a perversion that resulted from lust. I felt like homosexuals had brought upon themselves their own misery. I felt, like you stated, that on Judgment Day, homosexuals would be weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth.
I now believe that while choosing to commit homosexual acts is certainly the result of free will, that same-sex attraction is not necessarily, or even in most cases, a choice. I have the utmost pity and sorrow for my friends that have struggled with same-sex attraction, and I consider it the greatest of all mortal challenges. Greater than economic hardship, greater than disabilities or health problems, greater than abusive relationships.
As for my second concern, the natural man, I believe, already finds homosexuality gross. It's disgusting to all heterosexual men -- it's built-in to us to find it wrong and disturbing. Thus there is no value in preaching that it's disgusting -- to do so is, as they say, preaching to the choir. I did value your comments on standing up for what's right, in fighting legislation that degrades the family and allows homosexual practictioners to be called a family unit. But I never felt that your message was "love the sinner, hate the sin"; on the contrary, it seemed like you were saying we should shun anyone with such tendencies -- they will be found guilty at Judgment Day. There was no message about reclaiming them, in helping them to repent, or if there was, I missed it completely.
I don't believe such belligerence was your point -- I believe you were trying to dissuade tempted individuals from entering into sin, and trying to fight the tide of thought that considers homosexuality normal and not sinful. Both are crucial goals in the fight against this form of immorality. Yet your word choice, the points you made -- these, in my mind, were mistakes, and were more harmful than helping.
I hope I've been able to write this in the spirit of love that I feel for you. I'm grateful for righteous men like you that shoulder the burdens of priesthood leadership.
Sincerely,
Randy Tayler
What did my Stake President and I have in common? We both neglected to express love for the sinner adequately for those listening.
That said, I realize many will claim my love is feigned, if I don't think gays should have the right to marry. I don't know what to say to that. If I compare it to forbidding a child to play in the street, they'll say the comparison is unfair.
I should reiterate that not all those who disagreed with me resorted to name-calling, and that most folks didnt respond, period. 1300 some people have seen the message now, if my tracker is right, and only about a dozen responses thus far. I hope that those numbers are not representative of the level of participation we're taking in our own government.